The Administrative State

The Administrative State is Dwight Waldo's classic public administration text based on a dissertation written at Yale University. In the book, Waldo argues that democratic states are underpinned by professional and political bureaucracies and that scientific management and efficiency is not the core idea of government bureaucracy, but rather it is service to the public

The book posits that an "administrative state" contains a tension between democracy and bureaucracy that obliges career public servants to protect democratic principles.

Waldo's position is that the political versus administrative dichotomy is false , that public servants hold political positions that require more than the mere implementation of policy set by elected officials. Rather, they must negotiate between efficient, scientific management and the demands for due process and public access to government.

etc

My long career supports this notation that the Administrative State as some evil institution, is false... 'WE' support/supported democracy... we did not thwart our Constitution.

Do 'we' always need to remain awake and keep our 'eye' on the doings of the bureaucracy and the executive branch?

>>> YES <<<

And thus 'we' have in our Constitution separation of powers; legislative-executive-judicial.

Do any or each of these ever cross the line?

>>> YES <<<

And they are regularly, throughout our US history, called back into line (one might think of the executive power of the Nixon administration curtailed).

Or... we are doomed by the very government we created....

....which leaves us with what?

Authoritarian rule...

Brilliant solution.

Feel free to disagree.

I would tend to agree with Waldo, or at least your explanation of his thesis. I haven't read the book.

Our system of government is based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those parts are static; they don't change. We hold these truths to be self evident....

The laws, US Code and etc are dynamic, they do change. Initially to vote one had to be a white male land owner. That excluded most people from voting. That has changed over time.

The false argument that a cumbersome Bureaucracy negatively affects governorship of the society is misleading. The bureaucracy tempers the pace of change. This is because change can lead to tyranny.

The burning of the Reichstag and the complaints about the slow pace of Congress are omens to dictatorship. Unrestrained use of Presidential powers and the now politicized life long appointments to the Supreme Court are as well.

Quite obviously the most efficient means of governing is dictatorship; one person makes all the decisions. In a time of emergency or war this may be necessary.

There are two main problems with dictatorships. One is the suppression of rights or tyranny. The second problem is; if the guy calling the shots turns out to be an idiot society falls. History has shown there is no valid vetting technique that keeps all the idiots out all the time.

Efficiency in government is not the most important aspect of maintaining freedom or fair governance. Any arguments counter are suspect; possibly from powers that aim to end democracy.